Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 314 (PNJ)

Baldev v. Presiding Officer

2003-02-19

S.S.NIJJAR

body2003
Judgment S. S. Nijjar, J. 1. The petitioners are the erstwhile employees of the Beas Construction Board. They were employed on work-charge basis by the Beas Construction Board, continuously for a long period of time. However, their services were not regularized. Two references were made to the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal (Central), Chandigarh, being references No.3/c of 1973 and 9/c of 1973. These references were disposed of by an award by the Industrial Tribunal (Central), Chandigarh on 27th July, 1974. The following directions were issued: "i, therefore, direct that whenever recruitment of maintenance staff on the Project on or near its completion becomes necessary and whether the management at that tune is with the Central Government or with any of the State Governments on whose behalf the Central Government is at present managing, the offer shall first be made to work-charged employees in order of their seniority who have put in continuous service of 10 years or more on the Project in that category or trade where the vacancy occurs but all this will be subject to the medical fitness of the workman. The total length of service at the Project is to be taken in computing the period of 10 years continuous service. It does not, however, follow that If a workmen of 10 years continuous service is not available for any category or trade and those available are of less than 10 years service, they are not to be given preference. It is the senior most amongst them who should be taken on the maintenance staff. Scale of wages as applicable to the workmen will not, however, be disturbed to their prejudice nor will their continuity of services be affected. " 2. In spite of the aforesaid directions having been given, the petitioners were not given any relief. Thereafter, the workmen again raised an industrial dispute, which was numbered I. D.111 of 1983 (Delhi ). This reference was disposed of by the Presiding Officer, Central Government, Industrial Tribunal, Chandigarh on 28th January, 1986. The Tribunal has held that since BBMB was neither a party to the preceding reference No.8/c of 1973 nor was the Board summoned to join the references at any stage, the finding recorded in the earlier award was not binding on the BBMB. The Tribunal has held that since BBMB was neither a party to the preceding reference No.8/c of 1973 nor was the Board summoned to join the references at any stage, the finding recorded in the earlier award was not binding on the BBMB. A perusal of the earlier award shows that references No.3/c of 1973 and 9/c of 1973 had been disposed of on the basis of decision rendered in reference No.8/c of 1973. In the award, which is being challenged in the present writ petition, it has been held that Bhakra Construction Board is concerned only with the constructional aspect of the Project. After the completion of the Project, the work-charge staff like the petitioners were retrenched on payment of terminal benefits as envisaged in the Industrial Law. It was only thereafter that the BBMB took over the Project for maintenance and operation. 3. Consequently, it was held that BBMB is an entirely different venture managed by a different organization. The award, given in the earlier references, has been termed by the Presiding Officer, as suggestions made by a compassionate father. It has been held to be not of a binding nature. The petitioners were recruited and discharged by the BBMB in work-charge category and had been retrenched in accordance with law. Thereafter, on taking over the management of BBMB, the required staff was appointed on regular basis. The best available employees had been taken on roll. Thereafter in paragraph 11, the Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal noticed the offer made by the representative of the BBMB, whereby an undertaking was given that when any future vacancy arises at the Project, the petitioners would be reconsidered for employment. 4. Mr. Kapur has submitted that the petitioners were entitled to be considered for re-employment on the basis of seniority. The petitioners were also entitled to the protection of the length of service rendered on the previous Project. The earlier award dated 27th June, 1974 could not be set aside by the subsequent Presiding Officer. That being so, the petitioners are entitled to be re-employed in service, a direction needs to be issued to the respondents to implement the award given by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal (Central), Chandigarh on 27th June, 1974. 5. No written statement has been filed controverting the claim made by the petitioners. None appears on behalf of the respondents. That being so, the petitioners are entitled to be re-employed in service, a direction needs to be issued to the respondents to implement the award given by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal (Central), Chandigarh on 27th June, 1974. 5. No written statement has been filed controverting the claim made by the petitioners. None appears on behalf of the respondents. I have considered the entire matter with the assistance of the counsel for the petitioner. Undoubtedly, the directions given by the Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal (Central), Chandigarh on 27.7.1994, are binding on the he respondents. The Industrial Tribunal had categorically directed the respondents to reemploy the work-charge employees on the basis of seniority, who had put in more than 10 years service. This direction has not been over-ruled by any Competent Authority. Consequently, it is held that the respondents are duty bound to implement the award of the Presiding Officer dated 27th June, 1974. 6. The petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to implement the award within a period of 6 months from the receipt of a certified copy of the order.